Parbhani Doctor’s ₹15 Crore Complaint Against Jaguar Dealer Dismissed By Consumer Panel

The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Aurangabad bench, has dismissed a complaint filed by a Parbhani resident Dr. Eknath Ramrao Gabale against Asset Cars Pvt Ltd (an authorized dealer of Jaguar & Land Rover) where the complainant had sought for a refund of Rs 15 crore in compensation against the faulty car.

Dr. Gabale purchased a Jaguar F-Pace 2.0 Diesel R Dynamics S Model car on December 12, 2023, for Rs 91,67,443. Just 23 days later, on January 4, 2024, he experienced what he described as "break failure" while driving, causing panic on a crowded road. He reported the incident to both the dealer and the manufacturer, expressing his desire not to continue with the vehicle and demanding a refund due to an alleged manufacturing defect.

Initially, on January 10, 2024, an official from Asset Cars Pvt Ltd met Dr. Gabale in Parbhani and arranged for an alternative vehicle. The complainant also stated that on January 20, 2024, he was offered a replacement with a higher model, a Range Rover Sport Autobiography 3.0 Diesel, and was given a test drive. However, this offer was subsequently withdrawn via a telephonic message.

Jaguar Land Rover India Ltd.  contested the claim, arguing that there was no direct consumer relationship as transactions occurred on a principal-to-principal basis with the dealer . They also stated that while there was a reported issue of "low brake efficiency," it was not a manufacturing defect, and the "Anti Break System (ABS) Software Module" was updated free of cost under warranty obligations. They characterized the replacement offer as a "goodwill gesture" rather than an admission of a defect.

Advocate Niranjan Deshpande, appearing on behalf of Jaguar Land Rover India Limited said, “Diligent services offered reinforces the principle that structured redressal under warranty terms serves both consumer interests and fair business practice.”

The Commission, presided over by Milind S. Sonawane, with Dr. Nisha A. Chavhan and Nagesh C. Kumbre as members, determined that Dr. Gabale was indeed a "consumer" of both opponents, despite the principal-to-principal contract between the dealer and the manufacturer. This was based on the warranty liability lying with the manufacturer for manufacturing defects.

However, on the crucial point of an inherent manufacturing defect, the Commission found that Dr. Gabale failed to produce expert evidence to prove an "inherent" manufacturing defect. The Commission noted that the manufacturer's technical team diagnosed the issue as "low brake efficiency" and resolved it by updating the ABS software module under warranty, rendering the vehicle roadworthy. The offer of replacement was considered a goodwill gesture and not an admission of a manufacturing defect.

Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

news